Observation, logic, folklore and presuppositions

[findingblanks]

Eugene, I wasn't arguing that Steiner is making generalizations nor that he is factually wrong. You simply won't define racist which allows you to use it as you will without explanation. It's not a good look is all I'm saying. I think you will be much more effective in your goals if you are clear about what you are saying. It shouldn't be hard to show contextual quotations from Steiner about the issues you find deeply problematic. If you can't find direct evidence that Steiner actually believed that one race was ultimately and inherently superior than others that should not be a problem for your overall goal. But if you simply throw undefined trigger words around, well, it might feel good but I don't think it helps.

I can think of at least 10 ways we can approach objectively Steiner's claim that non-white people currently can not integrate with the deepest/highest principal of being a human being. It isn't all that much different from ways we can show he was objectively wrong by claiming that the color red is the cause for a bull charging. That is a very easy thing to prove. It isn't radically different to set up relatively objective criteria to show that Steiner was also wrong about the nature of non-white skin. Smart guy but he had some serious problems with colors

[findingblanks]

Hi Martin,

To be clear, Steiner isn't merely correlating skin color to spiritual capacity.

Steiner is explaining why non-white skin ONLY appears when the Christ cannot be integrated. He doesn't just say this tangentially. No, Steiner goes into great detail to explain why for the next 1,500 years ONLY WHITE PEOPLE can integrate and absorb The Christ. Steiner does not merely imply or state these things. He explains why all non-white 'races' must wait another 1,500 years before they can be 'impregnated' by White Humanity only IF white people fulfill their spiritual mission.

I think it is very important to distinguish when Steiner merely indicates something he thinks in general and when he explains his theory as to why something is a fact (that he believes is a fact).

[Ben Iscatus]

Instead of saying "thinking creates elementals", let's say "thinking creates thoughts".

I see, so you just strip the "elemental" of its subtlety and supposed independent existence, of how it flies out to influence someone it is directed to and then returns to sender, and all the rest of it... in this way, you'd do a super job of dumbing Steiner down to the point where he pretty well ceases to be there.

I expect you'd say he'd need to be introduced gradually....a bit at a time....until someone's ready....to be taken over!!

[AshvinP]

Let's be honest, you guys simply don't read anything Steiner writes. If I asked you to summarize his main work, Philosophy of Freedom, which contains absolutely no specific spiritual claims, you wouldn't be able to do it.

For the record, as you know, I've listened to an audio version of PoF, and explored parts of the online PDF copy, which for the most part I find resonates with the insights that I'd come to before ever reading it, and which both you and Cleric have helped to clarify in your own summaries. However, none of it changes the impression of Steiner that I've shared in the comment I made, in reply to Jim, previous to this one. So I'm curious what you make of those impressions, seeing Steiner as both brilliant and flawed, as brief as they may be?

In the most general terms, yes everyone is flawed... that is a key aspect of the entire foundation of the Christian tradition, including esoteric. But, in my experience, once one comes to really appreciate what Steiner is pointing to in PoF, in terms of our own spiritual activity as concrete reality, most of the shallow criticisms of Steiner re: racism, etc. are revealed as ignorance projected outwards. It will take more effort and more reading to flesh this out, but it's clear to me that what is being quoted here simply fails to understand anything essential about the spiritual evolutionary reality. Maybe I can give some concrete examples later. The main point being, until one experiences Thinking as immanently more than abstract combinatorial activity, all of these things will be understood as Ben is understanding "elementals", and then the critical quotes feel like they make sense, because we have projected our own flattened thinking onto Steiner.

I will add here, we should not lose sight of the purpose of pointing to Steiner in the first place, which is pointing to a spiritual reality which can be immanently experienced. If it somehow turned out that Steiner was a bigoted racist who made claims from his prejudice rather than spiritual insight, would that change my ability to experience and trust and in this spiritual reality? Not at all. So we should really see where all these distractions are leading our own spiritual activity - ultimately Steiner is not around to have hurt feelings, and no one who has experienced this spiritual reality will care either way, so we are only hurting ourselves by lending these criticisms power which they do not deserve.

[Jim Cross]

Hi Martin,

To be clear, Steiner isn't merely correlating skin color to spiritual capacity.

Steiner is explaining why non-white skin ONLY appears when the Christ cannot be integrated. He doesn't just say this tangentially. No, Steiner goes into great detail to explain why for the next 1,500 years ONLY WHITE PEOPLE can integrate and absorb The Christ. Steiner does not merely imply or state these things. He explains why all non-white 'races' must wait another 1,500 years before they can be 'impregnated' by White Humanity only IF white people fulfill their spiritual mission.

I think it is very important to distinguish when Steiner merely indicates something he thinks in general and when he explains his theory as to why something is a fact (that he believes is a fact).

I'm interested in seeing Ashvin responses to this since it would be a strong indication either that Steiner was wrong or that he (Ashvin) could not possibly possess higher cognition.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In the most general terms, yes everyone is flawed... that is a key aspect of the entire foundation of the Christian tradition, including esoteric. But, in my experience, once one comes to really appreciate what Steiner is pointing to in PoF, in terms of our own spiritual activity as concrete reality, most of the shallow criticisms of Steiner re: racism, etc. are revealed as ignorance projected outwards. It will take more effort and more reading to flesh this out, but it's clear to me that what is being quoted here simply fails to understand anything essential about the spiritual evolutionary reality. Maybe I can give some concrete examples later. The main point being, until one experiences Thinking as immanently more than abstract combinatorial activity, all of these things will be understood as Ben is understanding "elementals", and then the critical quotes feel like they make sense, because we have projected our own flattened thinking onto Steiner.

Ok, so to make some plausible sense of the quote I shared—in reply to Martin earlier—from a Steiner lecture opining about the impact of Negro novels on pregnant women, I first have to stop projecting my own deprived thinking onto it?

[Martin_]

I understand what your'e getting at, Ashvin, but nevertheless, correlating skin color with spiritual capacity is a hard sell these days.

Martin,

There is no correlation with spiritual capacity in our epoch. As Dana noticed, that would make no sense if someone like myself, clearly of non-white skin color, is also capable of understanding PoF, spiritual science, or developing imaginative cognition. There must be who knows how many non-white people alive today who have developed higher cognition. So that is simply a false understanding that is being perpetuated by Eugene, Jim, etc.

so what IS Steiner correlating skin color with in the above quote?

[AshvinP]

In the most general terms, yes everyone is flawed... that is a key aspect of the entire foundation of the Christian tradition, including esoteric. But, in my experience, once one comes to really appreciate what Steiner is pointing to in PoF, in terms of our own spiritual activity as concrete reality, most of the shallow criticisms of Steiner re: racism, etc. are revealed as ignorance projected outwards. It will take more effort and more reading to flesh this out, but it's clear to me that what is being quoted here simply fails to understand anything essential about the spiritual evolutionary reality. Maybe I can give some concrete examples later. The main point being, until one experiences Thinking as immanently more than abstract combinatorial activity, all of these things will be understood as Ben is understanding "elementals", and then the critical quotes feel like they make sense, because we have projected our own flattened thinking onto Steiner.

Ok, so to make some plausible sense of the quote I shared—in reply to Martin earlier—from a Steiner lecture opining about the impact of Negro novels on pregnant women, I first have to stop projecting my own deprived thinking onto it?

I added this to last quote but will repost it here too:

"I will add here, we should not lose sight of the purpose of pointing to Steiner in the first place, which is pointing to a spiritual reality which can be immanently experienced. If it somehow turned out that Steiner was a bigoted racist who made claims from his prejudice rather than spiritual insight, would that change my ability to experience and trust in this spiritual reality? Not at all. So we should really see where all these distractions are leading our own spiritual activity - ultimately Steiner is not around to have hurt feelings, and no one who has experienced this spiritual reality will care either way, so we are only hurting ourselves by lending these criticisms power which they do not deserve."

In direct response to your point above, I have no idea whether that quote is genuine or what context it is in. I searched for "negro novel" on the archive and found nothing. Do you have a link?

[findingblanks]

Jim, you said:

"I'm interested in seeing Ashvin responses to this since it would be a strong indication either that Steiner was wrong or that he (Ashvin) could not possibly possess higher cognition."

Ashvin acknowledges that he has no higher cognition.

[AshvinP]

Jim, you said:

"I'm interested in seeing Ashvin responses to this since it would be a strong indication either that Steiner was wrong or that he (Ashvin) could not possibly possess higher cognition."

Ashvin acknowledges that he has no higher cognition.

I have honestly lost track of who is referring to which quotes on this thread anymore. It would help matters a lot more if you (FB) would provide links every time you reference something Steiner said. And everyone else should as well. I'm not sure why I have to point this out...

And I'm hoping Cleric just drops a massive post soon addressing all of them at one time